I understand what youre saying, I just either dont agree or dont think it should be as complicated as you are making it. But you clearly cant help but to talk down to anyone who disagrees, so, we'll leave it at that.

As far as baskets, everyone is stuck on the idea of "one basket", which is unreasonable, and unfair to manufacturers. Rather i suggested, specs that allow for slight differences for them to operate within. Giving manufacturers options as opposed to making the same exact basket as someone else. This to me isnt an impossible task. It would create some uniformity and hopefully increase quality of targets given the PDGA could draw up a design that addresses the flaws of the current targets being used.

If you read the basket specs, they do not particularly shoehorn manufacturers into a certain type of basket, especially at the Basic level. There's lots of leeway for making a better basket including a smaller one but no one has done it (Gateway Bullseye, sort of) or appears to find it a worthwhile pursuit other than minor tweaks like smaller basket gaps. It's not like the PDGA Tech Standards team is getting inquiries from inventors asking us whether their target innovations would or could be approved. In contrast, we regularly get requests about possible tweaks to disc technology and specs.

Frank Delicious wrote:I will be excited to see how a lot of the Pros handle some of the tight courses at Charlotte. I do expect to hear some bitching about unfair holes because some of the holes at Nevin, HN and Renny really punish you if you miss the fairway.

There is nothing wrong with tight and/or demanding and/or punishing holes so long as a fairway exists. Any time a hole is so tight I don't even aim at a line, merely throw in a general direction, it becomes poke and hope and a bad hole.

A bad hole rewards luck not skill. If I want to gamble with bad odds I will visit a casino.

Yup, I do think that the way to promote skill more in the sport is not by hindering the putting, just making the fairways tighter and missing them more punishing. Which they do with OB already I think, but I was thinking more on the lines of bad lies than OB.

Nowadays the norm seems to be more on the side of "throw the most overstable disc with huge hyzer route" than "make the player throw arrow straight shot here or risk couple extra throws". Watching the endless hyzering on the open fairways is pretty boring compared to watching the pros do super accurate shots out of tight spots.

John Houck is spot on with his design concepts. I have played many Houck courses. I do not recall ever playing a single stupid hole on a Houck course and many, many great holes. Houck is one of the top designers in the game.

Basket design continues to suck because of two factors:

We (the disc golf community, including the parks who install courses) keep buying shitty baskets. Most baskets are sturdy and will last a long time but catch arbitrarily.

We (the disc golf community) has a surprising, shocking number of basket apologists who either think good putts get caught (so a spit out or blow through is the fault of the player) or who like the luck factor involved (poor putts can catch and good putts can fail).

If DGA could not sell their baskets they would improve them tomorrow. DGA is not alone but their place in the market makes them the worst offender.

I think he is saying if we as consumers basically boycotted them because of design they would then change it. But as long as they can sell 1000's a year they will not change anything. But if they only sold 10 and the community feed back was poor they would be forced to comply. The other basket making companies use dga designs except innova. A chainstar is a Mach 5 or II new with a single ring at the bottom where the chains hook. Lightning db5 is a Mach 3. Some smaller companies may differ a bit more but the main mfg make the same exact products. Give or take minute details.

But I beleive he is saying we would have to act forcing their hand not them making the first move

Kscustom wrote:I think he is saying if we as consumers basically boycotted them because of design they would then change it. But as long as they can sell 1000's a year they will not change anything. But if they only sold 10 and the community feed back was poor they would be forced to comply. The other basket making companies use dga designs except innova. A chainstar is a Mach 5 or II new with a single ring at the bottom where the chains hook. Lightning db5 is a Mach 3. Some smaller companies may differ a bit more but the main mfg make the same exact products. Give or take minute details.

But I beleive he is saying we would have to act forcing their hand not them making the first move

I hope you dont "think" thats what he said, because that is almost verbatim what he did say. What i got out of it was DGA is a leader in basket sales and manufacturing and that if they had a reason to change before now or in the near future they would, but also that being a leader in this sport they would hopefully try and advance the sport by addressing a flaw that they contribute to directly.

Realize that DGA is in a tough position to change as "keeper of the flame" for the founder of the sport and his original basket design that is still not too far from his newer models that are still played today in Championships.

Turso i definitely recommend playing in Disc Golf Terminalen in Skellefteå, Sweden if you can play the Scandinavian Open layout. One of the course designers Tomas Ekström made great points of challenging the players to become better by demanding hole design omitting OB. If you throw into rough you can't get out with an OB stroke and not gaining skills having to get out of trouble.

I really love the idea that you are faced with more risk and less reward and that the thinking player gains an advantage with proper thought over a great thrower that makes a mistake in analysis. And in the long term it's great to learn get out of trouble shots having to throw from nightmare places. That forces you to develop a large arsenal of trick shots. All for the good of becoming a more skilled player in both mental and physical execution of a competition. Not just a practice round.

Flat shots need running on the center line of the tee and planting each step on the center line. Anhyzer needs running from rear right to front left with the plant step hitting the ground to the left of the line you're running on. Hyzer is the mirror of that.

At my course this discussion means nothing. A 100 to 150 ft wide open shot is definitely a golf shot because of the wind factor. The north end of the course is a wide open field, so a 750 ft hole makes for a good par 4. More power to ya if you can throw 2- 400 ft shots and be close to the basket. There are only 2 or 3 holes where this might happen. I've seen whole courses where a long thrower designed 430 ft holes that fit his game. Made for boring golf. The concept of mimicking ball golf with par 4 and par 5 is flawed when it comes to discs. If a fairway driver automatically went higher and shorter it would be like a 3 wood or 5 wood, but they don't, so. The best holes for disc golf will always be par 3's. I only put one par 4 on my course. I have never agreed with Houck on his punishing design philosophy. When the obvious smart play is a 200 ft safe throw with a putter off the tee, no one will switch to that channel again. Courses should encourage you to get the most out of the wonderful new discs that will fly in many different ways, why carry a bag with 25 discs. The shortest hole I designed is 240 ft. tight alley throw. Another hole is the opposite of the punishing hole. Its 320 open with a tennis court fence 10 ft behind the basket. Again, its windy here. How often do you get the chance to fire a line drive from 70 ft and smack the chains. I've asked Houck for years whats wrong with fun? One other thing, there is no OB on my course. Yellow ropes make the game look like a nerd game. Good luck getting that on TV.

Whiz wrote:Oh, and since we are on the topic of the "NAGS" zone. I think the simplest way to describe it is to imagine a wide open hole that is 60' further than your max distance shot. Think about how boring a hole that would be for you. Unless you make a colossal mistake, you will be taking a 3 on the hole almost all the time. To run the upshot is really risking taking a bogie and not a smart decision.

This is one reason why I feel many people feel that Phil Moore is the weakest of the courses used for the Bowling Green Amateur Championships. It has some, not many, but some holes that are par 3s but out of reach for almost all AMs. This does not create good scoring separation. I would almost like to see more artificial OB used at Phil Moore with the OB tightening as you get closer to the green rather than opening up. This would create more of a risk for the few players who do run the 400'+ holes without the accuracy to place their shot. It would also create a better scoring separation.

^ This.

Whiz hits the nail on the head, and as someone who has worked scoring at multiple PDGA National Tour Events and every PDGA Pro Worlds since 2007, I can attest that the concept of NAGS and scoring separation is still completely foreign to many, many folks and even at our highest levels. When the scorecards come in for the Open & Masters divisions, it's often card after card with nothing but 3s for all four competitors on these tweener par 3 holes. Or 4s on tweener par four holes. Etc. And when you get a course with, for example, 6-10 tweener holes out of the 18 holes...it just defeats the purpose of competition in the first place.

And then you have the holes which are fine for Open & Masters, but have NAGS zones and are tweeners for Open Women, Masters Women and Senior Grandmasters divisions. But because of the potential for bruised egos, these divisions don't want to play different tees than the Open players, even though they are completely inappropriate and result in terrible scoring separations. But that is another topic altogether.